Assumptions about a well known poker pro.

William · #1 12-30-2006, 04:46 AM

Let's say you admire this particular poker pro.
Then let's say some unknown guy from some far away country wins a big poker tourney, first price 2/3 millions.
Let's also say taxes on poker winnings are horrible in this far away country, like 60% horrible.
Let's say the poker pro you admire bought a share of the unknown winner in the early stages. Something like 50%.
Let's say the unknown winner becomes a hero in his homeland. He's interviewed and he openly talks about his winnings, but as he only owned 50% of himself, he only pays taxes on that 50%. All the paperwork is in place with the known pro.

So far so good, the pro is a pro for some reason, one of these being he is good to spot new talents. Kuddos to him, you only admire him more for this.

Let's say a few months later, a new unknown player from the same far, overtaxed country wins a big tourney. Big price here as well.
Let's say the unknown pro was once again able to spot a future winner and this time, he bought 60% of this new star tourney action. He's so good as a talent scout! And as he lives in a tax paradise, he doesn't even have to pay taxes on his share of the deal. Life's great for the well known pro.

Let's say again, a couple of months later, a third young rising star from the far country makes a large cash at a final table and believe it or not let's say the pro, once again owned 60% of this guy. Of course all this new poker heroes are interviewed in the local poker magazines and they all sadly tell how they had to kiss goodbye to most of their winnings when they bought an "insurance" from the nice pro. The magazine even publishes the picture of the document signed by the pro. Everything it's totally legal and the local IRS must accept they will only be getting less than half of what they should. Nobody cares anyway, 60% is way too much.

Let's now say, for the fun of it and one last time, that a good friend of the well known pro, this time an excellent poker player that has won several tourneys allready and is very wealthy, wins a big tourney, a few weeks ago. He is also interviewed, everybody loves him, admires him, etc. though luck for him, he announces he was dumb enough to sell 80% of his tourney action to his pro friend. He just had a bad feeling about that particular tourney, not the last 10 ones he didn't cash in, and was happy to sell 80% of his eventual winnings to his good friend the well-known and admired pro. That way he covered his expenses. The USA is a very expensive country, especially if you are living in a hotel for a couple of weeks.

Shall I now assume that:

- The well known pro is a terrific businessman,a great talent scout and I should admire him even more for his good investements.

- The well known pro is something that is certainly forbidden to write in these forums and has been doing something that could lead to a long imprisonment time if the far away country IRS office is able to prove what they most certainly now suspect.

- This is not my bussiness and I should stop talking about it. Kuddos to the well known pro for being a smart guy and exploiting his well known image to make an extra buck.

Let's assume you have an opinion. Want to share it?

Sniper · #2 12-30-2006, 04:52 AM

Linky?

blackize · #3 12-30-2006, 04:56 AM

Is it just me or does this make zero sense?

William · #4 12-30-2006, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me or does this make zero sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, it is 100% grtd just you.

edfurlong · #5 12-30-2006, 05:09 AM

Blah blah blah, tax fraud, blah blah blah.

Black winter day · #6 12-30-2006, 05:07 AM

This is very very tl;dr

yellowsub · #7 01-01-2007, 06:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is very very tl;dr

[/ QUOTE ]

Army Eye · #8 12-30-2006, 05:08 AM

Interesting post, though you're gonna lose most of us in the maze of assumptions and hypotheticals. Also, the Internet Gambling forum doesn't seem appropriate.

Personally I"d go with option D - blackmail him with the knowledge so that you can get a piece of the action.

You've sure got me wondering who it is though..

SineNomine · #9 12-30-2006, 10:35 PM

I don't think it is just you.

Howard Treesong · #10 12-30-2006, 11:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me or does this make zero sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just you, and yes, the IRS pays for snitches. Proof of wrongdoing strikes me as being difficult in this instance, however: if money flows are big enough for the pro in question, he can easily and plausibly claim to have been in many more staking deals per the discussion above.